Why did the Albanese Government eliminate billions of tonnes of fossil fuel carbon emissions from public view. Rex Patrick investigates.
There are three types of carbon emission that come from industrial scale projects.
- Scope 1: Direct emissions.
- Scope 2: Supplier emissions (e.g. from electricity, heating or cooling needs)
- Scope 3: Customer emissions
For the recently approved North West Shelf extensions the annual Scope 1 emissions were estimated at 7.7 million tonnes, Scope 2 at 0.002 million tonnes and Scope 3 (from the gas being burnt by overseas customers) at 80 million tonnes (90% of all emissions are scope 3).
Over the 50 year extended life of the project it will generate 4 billion tonnes of scope 3 greenhouse gases.
Half transparent only
When Professor Graeme Samuel AC conducted his review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act) in 2019/20 he made a recommendation (recommendation 2b) that when developers are seeking approval for projects, they should “transparently disclose the full emissions of the development”. By that he meant Scope 1, 2 and 3.
When Minister Tony Bourke tabled the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 in the House on 30 October 2025, on behalf of Minister Murray Watt, something was missing.
Item 191 of the Bill only called for the disclosure by the developer of a reasonable estimate of the likely amount of scope 1 and scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions.
Environment Bill passes Senate as Greens cut deal with Labor
A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma
That led to the following exchange between Senator David Pocock and Deputy Secretary Rachel Parry at the Senate Committee hearing that looked into the Bill.
Senator Pocock: Recommendation 2 of the Samuel review included a requirement to ‘transparently disclose the full emissions of the development.’ Your response in attachment A of your submission is that proponents will disclose scope 1 and 2 emissions. This is clearly not ‘full emissions’ as recommended by Professor Samuel. What about scope 3 emissions? Why aren’t they included?
Ms Parry: That was a decision of government in terms of how the emissions were being characterised and disclosed as part of this package.
That was a non-answer by Ms Parry.
It would have been obvious to Senator Pocock, and anyone watching the hearing, that someone inside the Government (the Cabinet, the Minister, an official in the Department) had made a decision to exclude scope 3. He was clearly trying to get more than that.
MWM did an Freedom of Information (FOI) request seeking access to documents on the topic of ‘Scope 3 emission’ sent to and from Minister Watt’s office during the development of the Bill.
No direct answer to Pocock’s was found in among the 23 documents (of which 2 were completely refused on account of them being draft Cabinet documents).
But there was enough information across all the documents to work something out, which will be revealed in due course.
An unfaithful partner
MWM is obliged to be fair in its reporting.
The Government does have strategies for reducing emissions – but they are all centred on what happens directly inside Australia’s national boundaries.
It’s doing a lot to transition from fossil fuel generated power to renewable energy. Its working with State governments and councils to promote the domestic use of clean energy, including the take-up of electric vehicles, and to drive energy efficiencies.
It’s assisting the electrification of the transport sector, the use of a (corruption tolerant) Australian Carbon Credit scheme in the agricultural sector and is forcing large industrial emitters to gradually reduce emissions or offset them using the Safeguard Mechanism program.
But the Government is behaving like an unfaithful partner
– engaging in a wonderful net-zero loving relationship with the community from wake-up to breakfast, but then leaving the house for work where it engages in an evil emissions affair.
There is nothing in legislation, or the Government’s policies, that deal with Scope 3 emissions. We ship massive amounts of coal and gas and, along with it, responsibility for the emissions those fuels produce when it’s burnt and turned into energy.
Free to ignore, court rules
And they can do it with judicial blessing.
In 2016 the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) took Minister Greg Hunt to Court over his authorising, under the EPBC Act, of the Carmichael open cut thermal coal mine in inland Queensland.
In part, the ACF argued that the mine’s scope 3 emissions would, through rising global temperatures, have an unacceptable impact on the Great Barrier Reef.
The ACF’s arguments were dismissed by the Court. The ACF appealed the decision, focussing exclusively on the scope 3 emissions, but the Full Court upheld the primary judge’s decision, stating:
“There may be good grounds for disagreeing with the Minister’s decision, but that is not our concern in an appeal limited to the lawfulness of that decision. We see no justification for the assertion that he did not take into account the possible impacts of the overseas emissions on the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the consequences thereof and their impact on the Reef and on the protected matters.”
The Government was henceforth immune from consideration of scope 3 emission when considering its development approvals.
Climate Betrayal: how backroom deals with Japan locked Australia in for decades of gas
ICJ ruling, Australia in breach
In July 2025 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on the ‘Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change’ and found that countries have a duty to prevent significant environmental harm in the context of climate change.
The opinion means that Australia has to do everything it can to prevent that harm, and flowing from that it has an obligation in proper due diligence when assessing any fossil fuel projects.
Fleur Ramsay, a barrister specialising in indigenous rights and international environmental law, spelt this out to the Senate Committee looking into the EPBC Act reforms.
Ms Ramsay told the Committee, in response to a senator’s question about the reform bill’s approvals process,
“It would be in breach of Australia’s commitments to not assess scope 3,
under international law as it currently stands, as the ICJ has clarified.”
In relation to the lack of a requirement to disclose a project’s scope 3 emissions, she stated “Certainly, the lack of information around scope 3, now, would be in breach, at least in relation to what the ICJ has said, which is that those emissions belong to Australia—scope 3 belongs to Australia—because there’s no other purpose for coal, gas and oil but to combust it, so it’s part of the action.”
A FOI request by MWM following the ICJ’s ruling, which occurred as the EPBC reform bill was being drafted, showed that the Government was “carefully considering the decision”, just not acting on it (MWM has submitted an updated FOI request to see how that consideration is going).
ICJ climate action advisory meets Australian government doublespeak
Why no Scope 3 disclosures?
That brings us back to the question of why scope 3 emission disclosures weren’t in the reform Bill.
Certainly, the Department and the Minister were alive to the Scope 3 disclosure requirement. A June 2025 briefing from the Department to the minister explicitly stated that they would need to be disclosed, but advised the minister that they were consulting stakeholders on it.
June 2025 Ministerial Brief (Source: FOI)
But by mid-July 2025 the language had changed. A talking points brief had moved away from Scope 3 emissions being included in the reforms to the minister simply being open to extending the requirement to scope 3 emissions, “if this is feasible”.
Someone got to the Minister
The only explanation that can be seen in the 174 page release for not including Scope 3 emission disclosures in the Bill in is in a document labelled “Priority issues overview – July 2025’ which states that “Emissions intensive industry sectors will likely oppose any changes that increase focus on emissions profiles of projects – particularly with respect to Scope 3 emissions.”
And we all know that the Government can’t upset industry – and particularly the fossil fuel industry – with whom they are having an affair.
July 2025 Priority Issues Overview (Source: FOI)